I like VDH alot. He was always a decent and soft-spoken fellow and I know that some NeverTrumpers didn’t treat him fairly. I still think he is completely off when it comes to trade deficits. We have a trade deficit with Santa Claus for goodness sake. If Trump wants to grill the ChiComs (and there is a very fine argument for that), I’d prefer that he focus on intellectual property rights.

I like VDH alot. He was always a decent and soft-spoken fellow and I know that some NeverTrumpers didn’t treat him fairly. I still think he is completely off when it comes to trade deficits. We have a trade deficit with Santa Claus for goodness sake. If Trump wants to grill the ChiComs (and there is a very fine argument for that), I’d prefer that he focus on intellectual property rights.

Santa Claus isn’t a communist power that intends to put you under his thumb. Without our funding they wouldn’t be buying up assets throughout the world. The liberal approach you espouse is naive to say the least.

I like VDH alot. He was always a decent and soft-spoken fellow and I know that some NeverTrumpers didn’t treat him fairly. I still think he is completely off when it comes to trade deficits. We have a trade deficit with Santa Claus for goodness sake. If Trump wants to grill the ChiComs (and there is a very fine argument for that), I’d prefer that he focus on intellectual property rights.

Santa Claus isn’t a communist power that intends to put you under his thumb. Without our funding they wouldn’t be buying up assets throughout the world. The liberal approach you espouse is naive to say the least.

The Chinese economy would be growing dramatically with or without our ‘funding’ as you put it. There is an argument for viewing our economic relationship with China in a more realpolitik manner and tariffs can be part of that. But I find it naive to ignore basic economics because it is politically expedient. Furthermore, my point is that trade deficits aren’t the big deal the VDH has made them out to be. I’d prefer it if you could criticize me accurately.

The Chinese economy would be growing dramatically with or without our ‘funding’ as you put it. There is an argument for viewing our economic relationship with China in a more realpolitik manner and tariffs can be part of that. But I find it naive to ignore basic economics because it is politically expedient. Furthermore, my point is that trade deficits aren’t the big deal the VDH has made them out to be. I’d prefer it if you could criticize me accurately.

And VDH and I are saying it very much matters with whom you have your trade deficits. And not to take that into consideration is naive.

China’s growth strategy was very much premised on exports to far richer markets. To be sure we are not the only rich market in the world, but we are a major one. And to not allow them in will crimp their growth rate.

I’m not ignoring basic economics at all. You and most conservatives buy into the comparative advantage trope as though it’s the last word in basic economics when it isn’t.

Interesting podcast with the professor. Don’t know enough to tangle with either @hangon or @henrycastaigne. However let’s all agree that Joe Biden may very well be bought and paid for by the ChiComs. Speaking of which, listened to a BBC interview w/ Adam Schift (!!) who agrees (!!!) with President Trump on keeping Huiwei out. However NOT ONCE did either the interviewer or Schift refer to the Chinese government as a Communist government. People seem to be willfully forgetting that China is a Communist nation not matter how ‘capitalist’ they may act.

I like VDH alot. He was always a decent and soft-spoken fellow and I know that some NeverTrumpers didn’t treat him fairly. I still think he is completely off when it comes to trade deficits. We have a trade deficit with Santa Claus for goodness sake. If Trump wants to grill the ChiComs (and there is a very fine argument for that), I’d prefer that he focus on intellectual property rights.

Santa Claus isn’t a communist power that intends to put you under his thumb. Without our funding they wouldn’t be buying up assets throughout the world. The liberal approach you espouse is naive to say the least.

The Chinese economy would be growing dramatically with or without our ‘funding’ as you put it. There is an argument for viewing our economic relationship with China in a more realpolitik manner and tariffs can be part of that. But I find it naive to ignore basic economics because it is politically expedient. Furthermore, my point is that trade deficits aren’t the big deal the VDH has made them out to be. I’d prefer it if you could criticize me accurately.

TPP was the hammer to hit China with on trade. Instead we hung our allies out to dry.

Interesting podcast with the professor. Don’t know enough to tangle with either @hangon or @henrycastaigne. However let’s all agree that Joe Biden may very well be bought and paid for by the ChiComs. Speaking of which, listened to a BBC interview w/ Adam Schift (!!) who agrees (!!!) with President Trump on keeping Huiwei out. However NOT ONCE did either the interviewer or Schift refer to the Chinese government as a Communist government. People seem to be willfully forgetting that China is a Communist nation not matter how ‘capitalist’ they may act.

Before the rise of Xi Jinping and after Deng Xiaoping, China was a Leninist crony capitalist state. The politburo controlled everything but they let there be freeish markets in order to generate wealth that can be used by the politburo. Now I have heard reports that Xi Jinping is more like Putin and that he is the the dictator of the politburo. Communists are like Maduro where they want the government to control the economy and so everyone without political connections starve. China is much more like fascism flavored with free market vigor. Corporations are allowed to make money and innovate but they have to tow the government line.

I like VDH alot. He was always a decent and soft-spoken fellow and I know that some NeverTrumpers didn’t treat him fairly. I still think he is completely off when it comes to trade deficits. We have a trade deficit with Santa Claus for goodness sake. If Trump wants to grill the ChiComs (and there is a very fine argument for that), I’d prefer that he focus on intellectual property rights.

Trade seems to be a subject in which most people, even Conservatives, do not understand.

To begin with, there is really no such thing as a “trade deficit.” Every trade between two countries involves an even swap of goods or services for the other’s goods or services. The only reason they came up with the term “trade deficit” is because economists for some reason only concentrate on “goods” while ignoring “services.” We buy mostly “goods” from China, but they buy mostly “services” from us. So when you only count the “goods,” it seems like we are buying more from them, but we are not. It is completely equal.

Even if there was a real trade imbalance, and if we were actually buying more stuff from China than they are buying from us, then it would be a good thing, in fact a huge bonanza for us. This would mean that we are receiving real property or services that millions of Chinese had to toil over, and they are stuck with worthless pieces of paper. That would be insane, akin to slave labor. People get the idea that it is the money that is important for wealth. It is not. It is the things you can buy with money that is considered wealth. Money is just an artificial substitute for “real tangible stuff.” You could have all the money in the World, but if you can’t exchange it for anything to enhance your life, then you are poor.

Every single dollar spent on Chinese goods eventually finds its way back to the United States, in order to purchase something made by Americans. Again, if this were not the case, then millions of foreigners would be stuck holding worthless pieces of paper in exchange for giving us free stuff.

And VDH and I are saying it very much matters with whom you have your trade deficits. And not to take that into consideration is naive.

I pointed out in my last comment that there is no such thing as a real “trade deficit.” I would point out that during the entire Great Depression, economists tell us that we had a “trade surplus” with most of the World. During the last 35 years when they have been saying we have a “trade deficit,” the U.S. economy and standards of living have left everyone else in the dust. Our manufacturing output has doubled in that time, also leaving everybody behind with the lone exception of China, and only because they have 5 times more people than we have. How does that make any sense with the conventional wisdom?